UK CONSTITUTION !!!!

[Outsider]

As far as I know, Unlike in America, courts have no power (or at least the establishment consider them to have no power) to overturn Statute. Thus at best a successful judicial review would be advising the government to change it's mind, which it wouldn't.

You couldn't be more wrong. The most powerful "law makers" in this country is the courts. Our law has three strands to the decision making process regarding it. Common Law, Statute and Case Law. Our laws are forever being asserted and Are evolving long after Royal Assent.

Again, that is why I say that for a RKBA argument before a court, must be whilst a person is imprisoned. Criminal case law is very, very powerful. In all the research that I've done, not once in a case has the BoR been cited as defence to a charge of an offensive weapon in a public place. Loads of other stuff about what constitutes a weapon, what is possession, what is a public place. But nothing, where someone from interview to appeal has shouted, "This is my defensive weapon as guaranteed me, through Common Law and the Bill of Rights".

Show me the man brave enough, with pockets deep enough...

It's a bit of a fantasy of mine that if I ever win the lottery or such, I'd put the money into various investments and build up enough capital to go full corporate assault on firearm law in the UK. Build clubs, ranges and gun shops everywhere exploit the hell out of the small bore range loophole, challenge the government left, right and centre on every issue, build up manufacturing, etc.

But alas, I have not the dosh nor the leverage to do so. At the moment...

[Daniel11]

As far as I know, Unlike in America, courts have no power (or at least the establishment consider them to have no power) to overturn Statute. Thus at best a successful judicial review would be advising the government to change it's mind, which it wouldn't.

You couldn't be more wrong. The most powerful "law makers" in this country is the courts. Our law has three strands to the decision making process regarding it. Common Law, Statute and Case Law. Our laws are forever being asserted and Are evolving long after Royal Assent.

Again, that is why I say that for a RKBA argument before a court, must be whilst a person is imprisoned. Criminal case law is very, very powerful. In all the research that I've done, not once in a case has the BoR been cited as defence to a charge of an offensive weapon in a public place. Loads of other stuff about what constitutes a weapon, what is possession, what is a public place. But nothing, where someone from interview to appeal has shouted, "This is my defensive weapon as guaranteed me, through Common Law and the Bill of Rights".

Show me the man brave enough, with pockets deep enough...

I hate to disagree on a matter of legal technicality, but it seems rather important: Law is primarily made by judges in English Law, however statute law is considered supreme and above case law. That is why cases such as 'Factortame', where the courts challenged parliament, were so controversial. It is part of a doctrine known as 'Parliamentary Sovereignty'. That being said, courts still have law making powers, but not as far as contradicting parliament. Thus as you seem to say a court could Rule RKBA as a legitimate defense or 'Good Reason' within the offensive weapons act, or even rule it a 'Good Reason' for an FAC, (both influential and important changes), however there is no way they could 'Overrule' an Act of Parliament. I suppose it could be summarised as
Act of Parliament > Courts > Home office policy, white paper on Firearms etc.

[Daniel11]

The truth is that a bold man alone could not assert the RKBA in the UK, as Parliament would quickly overrule any such judgement and crush our new found (or newly rediscovered) rights with harsher laws.
What could work is a series of Campaigns to promote Firearms usage AND firearms rights (so no 'We have shotguns on license, not like those crazy Americans that own Rifles and think it their right to defend themselves'- style attitudes).
Such a campaign would have to simultaneously promote Firearms usage, and Assert RKBA through the courts. Secondly, such a campaign cannot base RKBA in the Bill of Rights, as by the letter of the law, it only allows Weapons for protestants as allowed by law. (People can argue over what those words meant originally all they like, modern courts will take a different view).
Any assertion of a British RKBA must be based in Common Law, which has established since the 13th century at least that it is the Right AND responsibility for every Englishman (and therefore Briton) to keep Arms for their own and for national defence within a degree of reasonable government control.

[Blu]

Daniel11

not like those crazy Americans that own Rifles and think it their right to defend themselves

Sorry to disagree here Daniel but the right to self defence in America has nothing to do with Americans "thinking" self defence is a right. The right to self defence is law.

[Daniel11]

Daniel11

not like those crazy Americans that own Rifles and think it their right to defend themselves

Sorry to disagree here Daniel but the right to self defence in America has nothing to do with Americans "thinking" self defence is a right. The right to self defence is law.

Yes that is true. If you read the rest of my post you will see that was a 'quote' from a hypothetical British gun owner, designed to represent the views I feel many British shooters hold, not my own views...

I would not have entered into a discussion about RKBA if I was not aware of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Sometimes the context is everything......

[Blu]

Daniel11

not like those crazy Americans that own Rifles and think it their right to defend themselves

Sorry to disagree here Daniel but the right to self defence in America has nothing to do with Americans "thinking" self defence is a right. The right to self defence is law.

Yes that is true. If you read the rest of my post you will see that was a 'quote' from a hypothetical British gun owner, designed to represent the views I feel many British shooters hold, not my own views...

I would not have entered into a discussion about RKBA if I was not aware of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Sometimes the context is everything......

Fair enough and point taken. I sometimes have to smile when I read how some folks interpret the 2nd Amendment without really understanding it.

[Blackstuff]

Such a campaign would have to simultaneously promote Firearms usage, and Assert RKBA through the courts. Secondly, such a campaign cannot base RKBA in the Bill of Rights, as by the letter of the law, it only allows Weapons for protestants as allowed by law. (People can argue over what those words meant originally all they like, modern courts will take a different view).

Sorry but in a court of law where the point of law is the subject of the debate, what that law meant at the time of writing is the critical point, not how it is intepreted though current legislation/perspective. See the Heller case in the US for exactly that.

[Sim G]

I hate to disagree on a matter of legal technicality, but it seems rather important: Law is primarily made by judges in English Law, however statute law is considered supreme and above case law. That is why cases such as 'Factortame', where the courts challenged parliament, were so controversial. It is part of a doctrine known as 'Parliamentary Sovereignty'. That being said, courts still have law making powers, but not as far as contradicting parliament. Thus as you seem to say a court could Rule RKBA as a legitimate defense or 'Good Reason' within the offensive weapons act, or even rule it a 'Good Reason' for an FAC, (both influential and important changes), however there is no way they could 'Overrule' an Act of Parliament. I suppose it could be summarised as
Act of Parliament > Courts > Home office policy, white paper on Firearms etc.

A court of course cannot over rule statute, but it can in it's judgement change the intention of statute law. Case law is phenomenally important in clarifying specifics of statute and in rooting out "bad law", such as the Dangerous Dogs Act. But a court certainly can and has changed parliaments intention. Case in point; s139 CJA 1988.

[Sim G]

The truth is that a bold man alone could not assert the RKBA in the UK, as Parliament would quickly overrule any such judgement and crush our new found (or newly rediscovered) rights with harsher laws.
What could work is a series of Campaigns to promote Firearms usage AND firearms rights (so no 'We have shotguns on license, not like those crazy Americans that own Rifles and think it their right to defend themselves'- style attitudes).
Such a campaign would have to simultaneously promote Firearms usage, and Assert RKBA through the courts. Secondly, such a campaign cannot base RKBA in the Bill of Rights, as by the letter of the law, it only allows Weapons for protestants as allowed by law. (People can argue over what those words meant originally all they like, modern courts will take a different view).
Any assertion of a British RKBA must be based in Common Law, which has established since the 13th century at least that it is the Right AND responsibility for every Englishman (and therefore Briton) to keep Arms for their own and for national defence within a degree of reasonable government control.

You're making assumptions to discount the argument. Likewise, I'm presuming you were around the sport at the time of one of the bans? More recently, have you seen the various campaigns and petitions for the reintroduction of this firearm type, or repeal of that firearm law? Nothing. Not a sausage. Pure and simply because there is no support from the country as a whole, who are at best apathetic towards guns, at worst, anti. We have barely one percent of the population who are gun owners, the last thing you need to do is tie RKBA and gun ownership together.

The fact is, a gun is just one of the many tools that could be utilisied around RKBA. Look at the continent. Incapacitant sprays are available over the counter in hardware stores. Why do people think RKBA is about guns? Does RKBA not have more of a chance being reasserted when guns are dropped out of the equation?

The BoR does not only allow protestants! It reaffirms the rights of protestants to that of catholics. As for "allowed by law"? how else can that be interpreted except as common law right? No legislation around personal arms existed at the time neither, nor did the first statutes come about for nearly 200 years after the BoR and then a raft of that statute was repealed as it contradicted the BoR! But how can you assert "protestants" with such dogma, but align "Englishman" with Briton?

The BoR is eight pages long and costs £2.35 from the Staionary Office. ISBN 0-11-801805-1.

[Daniel11]

I have indeed read the relevant sections of the BoR. And I am aware of it's intention to reinstate rights taken away. However what I said remains factually correct: By the wording of the Law, it allows Protestants to Bear arms, and only then 'as allowed by law'. I am also aware of what many hold these words to have meant originally. I like to think that me offering how I think a modern court might see them would be a useful and relevant contribution.

How can I 'assert protestant' with such 'Dogma'?: I dont believe I have 'asserted' protestantism (I think it was created long before I was born). It is also mentioned in the law in question - that makes it relevant in my book.
How can I equate Englishman with Briton?: 'Calvin's Case' - a 1608 Legal decision which granted Scots the benefit of English Common Law. Wales having been a legal part of England at the time the BoR was passed means by simple deduction that all People from Britain are affected by this aspect of English Common Law.



By all means challenge the validity of my opinions, but please do the background reading before preaching from the pulpit of common law. You are not the only person aware of English Law, nor is the BoR the only piece of English law.

I think I have answered your questions and addressed your assertions, and for what it's worth I'm not entirely sure if the stationary office sell Calvin's case, so your lack of Knowledge regarding it is more than excusable